Practical Lawful Dissent FMOTL antics, continued...

[Burnaby49]

Instead of just expressing how sad you are at Dave's demise it's time for you all to dig into your pockets and help give Dave a send-off commensurate with the man's stature in the world of Article 61 craziness! They certainly need the help;

https://www.gofundme.com/f/5wdx2e-david ... orial-fund

And, while you're at it, here's you chance to have the purple haired loon grace your shores with her actual presence rather than just interacting with you through her internet lunacy!

https://www.gofundme.com/f/david-amp-jacquie

It must sometimes be nice to live in her world where you can just hop on a plane to a foreign country without a mask or passport and hold an actual funeral ceremony during a strict Covid lockdown. However, given the current dismal state of Dave's funeral fund, Covid may not much hamper funeral plans.

[JimUk1]

Instead of just expressing how sad you are at Dave's demise it's time for you all to dig into your pockets and help give Dave a send-off commensurate with the man's stature in the world of Article 61 craziness! They certainly need the help;

https://www.gofundme.com/f/5wdx2e-david ... orial-fund

And, while you're at it, here's you chance to have the purple haired loon grace your shores with her actual presence rather than just interacting with you through her internet lunacy!

https://www.gofundme.com/f/david-amp-jacquie

It must sometimes be nice to live in her world where you can just hop on a plane to a foreign country without a mask or passport and hold an actual funeral ceremony during a strict Covid lockdown. However, given the current dismal state of Dave's funeral fund, Covid may not much hamper funeral plans.

Shocked by the level of generosity stupidity in those amounts been donated.

[Juisarian]

Even in death he's still begging for money.

[Burnaby49]

Even in death he's still begging for money.

Not quite, Jacquie Phoenix opened the GoFundMe. She set up two of them, one for herself and the other, purportedly, for Dave.

[jackroe]

It would appear that two of the customers have had their collars felt just because they stood up for their rights :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-n ... e-54950773

Obviously Notts Police are unaware of THE LAW

TheRambler

"Although the 800-year-old document is an important part of legal history, only four clauses are still relevant, according to the Parliament website.

These do not include clause 61." (BBC Article)

The problem with this argument is that the Charter of 1215 was never annulled by Parliament, what happened is that Henry III a charter in 1225 also called magna carta, which contained the 1215 charter's clauses, with some modifications and deletions, which was confirmed in 1297 by Edward I, that is what is on the parliament's website, and that is what has had sections repealed by statute. The 1215 Charter has never had any section repealed.

If my grandfather makes a grant of A, B, C and I make a grant of A and B, it hardly nullifies my grandfather's grant of C, does it?

I am skeptical of the notion that the barons who petitioned the Queen under Magna Carta are completely out to lunch, also skeptical that it is completely political theater. Presume, for the sake of argument, that they were correct, that their petition meant nobody had to obey the Queen, and all acts of parliament are grants of the sovereign to which people owe obedience for whatever reason. It seems that in Magna Carta 1215, the sovereign granted for himself and his heirs that if so many barons ever petitioned the sovereign, and that if the sovereign refused to accede to their demands,

"If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us." (https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/edu ... runnymede/)

So, the common law does not derive its force from obedience to the sovereign, the sovereign enforces the common law, but does not grant it. Acts of parliament, on the other hand, are grants of the sovereign, so, if people are excused from their "normal obedience" to the sovereign and his heirs, they should not have to obey acts of parliament.

If this were the case, it would create utter chaos for the commercial world, because no one would need acknowledge any legislation whatsoever, they could basically do anything mala prohibita, they would only be forbidden from doing those things malum in se:

"Also malum aut est malum in se, aut prohibitum, that which is against common law is malum in se, malum prohibitum is such an offence as is prohibited by Act of Parliament, and not by proclamation." (77 ER 1352)

I myself own many species of statutory property, like stocks and so forth, so I am well invested in the statutory regime---but if I were not, what might my view be? I think those who dismiss this are doing so without really looking into what is being said. If Magna Carta 1215 has not been revoked (and it has not, alterations were made to a subsequent Charter made by Henry III, confirmed by Edward I) then there is not any obligation to obey acts of parliament.

In Old English, law is divided into ae, customary law, doma, judgments (case law) and asetnysa, statute law. So, she is saying she has to follow ae, not asetnysa. If people want to support an erection (a statu[t]e, an erection, etc.) that is their business, but can people be compelled to finance the erection of a statue? I do not know. I just know that the system we have works well for me, even if businesses are shut down, so, why would I care =][

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The problem with this argument...

Hard to tell if you are just plain stupid or trolling for fun. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[jackroe]

The problem with this argument...

Hard to tell if you are just plain stupid or trolling for fun. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I have enough investment in the system to want it to continue, but I'm not such an arrogant prick as to think that my investment and the beliefs required to support it are somehow "correct" or "just" or "law," they're simply what benefits me.

[exiledscouser]

Deleted - duplicate post

[exiledscouser]

Interesting post jackroe and welcome to Quatloos.

The PLD thread is less a debate as to the relevance of common law in a modern society, its more born out of one man’s interpretation of one small part of MC1215. His view is that once four barons play their A61 card it becomes the duty, not just for other barons but of everyone to resist the Crown however they can until whatever grievance kicked things off is redressed.

The reasons why in 2001 four barons purported to rely on Art 61 was founded on not making closer ties with Europe. With Brexit you might think that this particular grievance is settled. Not however for the PLD gang for whom this will never be addressed to their satisfaction.

For them they interpret this as carte Blanche for reasons and excuses to renege on all of life’s inconveniences such as paying any and all taxes, utility bills for gas, water and electricity whilst enjoying the freedom of the roads without the bother of insurance, licence or MOT etc usually jollied along with intoxicants both legal and illegal making progress interesting. All done flying under Art 61.

This thread has largely followed the antics of “Dismal” Dave Robinson (RIP) and his many followers both here and abroad and it’s been an interesting journey.

I don’t think those drafting MC1215 or even the later versions had the common man very much in mind; withholding the tithe for instance was not really an option worth considering. Slavery was very much a thing in 13th century English society, not for them the finer points of MC.

Common Law holds unless superseded by statute. The idea that we are forever stymied by an 800 year old charter, well I’m not sold on that. Seeing the perversion of MC to suit certain malcontents using it to opt out of society whilst continuing to enjoy all its benefits will always attract my attention.

[jackroe]

Common Law holds unless superseded by statute. The idea that we are forever stymied by an 800 year old charter, well I’m not sold on that. Seeing the perversion of MC to suit certain malcontents using it to opt out of society whilst continuing to enjoy all its benefits will always attract my attention.

I discussed the whole thing with a friend who is a judge, and he was fairly adamant that the 1215 Magna Carta had not been repealed, so it was still valid law, so, if that were the case, it's a fairly simple argument that they are making. It's that the common law does not derive its force from a grant of the sovereign, but acts of parliament are grants of the sovereign, so there is an obligation to obey the common law, but not grants of the sovereign. On the other hand, what Magna Carta A61 does do is grant to the barons and "whole community of the land" the right to

"distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us."

That redress would be to exit the Treaty of Nice, or whatever the grievance was. Practically, I don't see a lot of success, because the political context of this grant is that if the barons are going to do this, there are likely going to be other barons who might not, who would adhere to the King, so they would have to fight it out.

I guess that is why one of my favorite law books cites David v. Goliath as a case warranting battle as a method of legal proof.

And then there is the rider to A61, "We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party."

So, if someone had procured an act of parliament purporting to render "these concessions or liberties," it is null and void. Though, I suppose this clause itself could be annulled. Me, I am glad that statutory schemes continue, I have investments!

[wserra]

I discussed the whole thing with a friend who is a judge, and he was fairly adamant that the 1215 Magna Carta had not been repealed, so it was still valid law

Who would that be?

[longdog]

I discussed the whole thing with a friend who is a judge, and he was fairly adamant that the 1215 Magna Carta had not been repealed, so it was still valid law

Got any more of these things that didn't happen you'd like to tell us about?

Or was this judge a judge at dog shows?

Are you seriously asking us to believe that a real judge from a real court believes a widow can only remarry with the consent of her "lord" and a woman can only accuse a man of murder if the victim is her husband?

Pull the other one mate. It's got bells on.

[wserra]

Pull the other one mate. It's got bells on.

Oscar Wilde: I wish I had said that.
James McNeill Whistler: You will, Oscar, you will.

[TheNewSaint]

The problem with this argument is that the Charter of 1215 was never annulled by Parliament, what happened is that Henry III a charter in 1225 also called magna carta, which contained the 1215 charter's clauses, with some modifications and deletions, which was confirmed in 1297 by Edward I, that is what is on the parliament's website, and that is what has had sections repealed by statute. The 1215 Charter has never had any section repealed.

Funny you don't mention 1216.

[longdog]

The problem with this argument is that the Charter of 1215 was never annulled by Parliament, what happened is that Henry III a charter in 1225 also called magna carta, which contained the 1215 charter's clauses, with some modifications and deletions, which was confirmed in 1297 by Edward I, that is what is on the parliament's website, and that is what has had sections repealed by statute. The 1215 Charter has never had any section repealed.

Funny you don't mention 1216.

Or 1217 or 1225.

[notorial dissent]

Since John and the Pope annulled it almost before the ink was dry it is all rather irrelevant.

[aesmith]

Since we're exchanging comments about and by Magna Carta idiots, I have now found the original source for my favourite comment ...

Richard Green
And who will write this new constitution? Parliament havn't got the authority, so thats them out of the picture. The MC 1215 can't be touched except to improve it.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/practic ... 779531956/

[SpearGrass]

As Notorial Dissent says, the charter, including Art 61, was annulled by the Pope, in 1215, who had the right to do so, as he was the country's feudal overlord. It's also clear that the people in the 13th century, who can be expected to know a bit more about their legal system than we do, were not confident that any version of the Charter was valid, which is why they repeatedly made Henry III and Edward 1 reconfirm it. It only got securely fixed following the creation of Parliament, which is why the 1297 Act is the only game in town.
It's not really possible to take seriously the idea that a judge would come out with that stuff. Legal history is an elective course in university law courses, so most lawyers won't have done it, but constitutional law is compulsory, and no-one could come out of a legal qualification without knowing that the supreme authority in our consistitution is the Queen (or King) in Parliament Assembled. Nor could they believe that one Act could not supersede another. Either the judge or Jackroe is having a bit of fun.
If magna carta 1215 were still law, we would need to work out who is a freeman and who a villein, so that we can deny law and justice to the latter. Also work out the status of an oath under Art 61 sworn to Lord Craigmyle, a Scottish peer, and thus not competent to take the oath in any event, being a baron of another country.
In other PLD news, there has been a recent explosion in these oaths being submitted to courts.

[notorial dissent]

Another crucial point that these nimjibs conveniently forget/aren't aware of/ignore is that at the time/times in question the Kyng's word WAS LAW, ABSOLUTE LAW, and that applied to and in EVERY sense and meaning and value of the word. John was an absolute monarch and his word was law, and NO ONE was going to tell him what to do. He in fact repudiated the charter almost immediately and even made attempts to get them ALL back and destroy any existing copies of it, then the Pope went and saved him the trouble by annulling it.

[TheNewSaint]

Jackroe also uses the common sovcit fallacy of "it doesn't count because it wasn't done exactly the way I think it should be done."

As best as I understand it, this council of barons was the closest thing to Parliament that even existed at the time. And it's hard to argue their intent was to keep Clause 61 after it started a civil war, and was promptly written out of every subsequent version of the document. It was certainly annulled by the methods that existed at the time.